Chris is Professor of Political Science at Western Connecticut State University, a Fulbright Scholar, Director of the Kathwari Honors Program, and founding Director of the Center for Compassion, Creativity & Innovation. He is also the author of "The Compassionate Achiever: How Helping Others Fuels Success" (HarperOne, 2017).
‘It’s My Own Invention’
~Title of Chapter 8 in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass
As artificial intelligence (A.I.) develops, humanity’s strengths and weaknesses will increasingly be reflected in the machines we create. I couldn’t help but think of Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass as I exited the theater after watching Alex Garland’s A.I. masterpiece, Ex Machina. Ava (Garland’s A.I. character) is the personification of Carroll’s words, especially the exchange between Alice and the White Knight over his horse’s anklets:
‘You see,’ he went on after a pause, ‘it’s as well to be provided for EVERYTHING. That’s the reason the horse has all those anklets around his feet.’
‘But what are they for?’ Alice asked in a tone of great curiosity.
‘To guard against the bites of sharks,’ the Knight replied. ‘It’s an invention of my own.’
Artificial intelligence is helping us (human beings) with “everything” from cooking and calculating to driving and flying. We are increasingly using A.I. because, in part at least, it can help us “guard against” our own mistakes in driving, flying, etc … for to err is human. A.I. is an ‘invention of our own’ to help us provide for everything we need (or want) and to guard against the bites of our own mistakes. However, what if, as some notable leaders in business, science and technology recently remarked, our own invention has a strong and devastating bite?
Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk all recently warned of the threat that artificial intelligence poses to human existence. While Musk characterized A.I. development as “summoning the demon,” Gates posted the following answer to a question on a Reddit forum: “I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don’t understand why some people are not concerned.” Dr. Hawking told the BBC in December 2014 that “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”
Gates, Hawking and Musk all temper their ‘danger-Will-Robinson’ remarks, however, by explaining the potential benefits of A.I., if people are able to control and manage it well. As the Future of Life Institute (FLI), which received a $10 million donation from Musk, recently wrote in an open letter signed by Hawking, Musk and many other well-known scientists and technologists: “Success in the quest for artificial intelligence has the potential to bring unprecedented benefits to humanity, and it is therefore worthwhile to research how to maximize these benefits while avoiding potential pitfalls.” The FLI is calling for an interdisciplinary approach to the development of A.I. because how and what we choose to emphasize in its evolution will determine whether A.I. provides greater benefits than pitfalls. As Ava sarcastically said in Ex Machina, “I’m interested to see what you’ll choose.”
We need to emphasize the moral, ethical and social-emotional aspects of learning just as much as—if not more than—the technological and intellectual factors in A.I. development. Values such as compassion, empathy, gratitude and forgiveness should be woven into this new version of the body electric, which Walt Whitman used as a symbol for the oneness of all people. If we do not choose to emphasize EQ (emotional quotient) as much as IQ (intelligence quotient), then I do not know how we avoid the pitfalls of A.I. Cognitive intelligence without emotional intelligence tends to lead to unstable and even psychopathic behavior; such a combination has been used to describe serial murderers. Do we really want our technological “anklets” to become man-eating sharks?
As we step through the looking glass of A.I., it is wise to remember William Durant’s words regarding the collapse of civilizations: “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within.” A.I.’s role in the fate of our civilization will be determined by how much human compassion or indifference we emphasize in our body electric. The next chapter in the story of humanity could be titled: ‘When Ava Met Alice.’
A wise old owl sat on an oak
The more he saw the less he spoke
The less he spoke the more he heard
Why aren’t we like that wise old bird?
~Unknown from 1800s
Wisdom and compassion share a common first step: listening. Owls seemingly understand this better than humans. Popularly known as a symbol of wisdom and knowledge, many may not know that the owl is also a model of altruism and compassion. We, especially in American culture, seemingly listen more in an effort to reply rather than in an attempt to understand: simply turn on the radio and television or attend a local town meeting and ask yourself if you hear more wisdom and compassion or less. With the sound of our neighborhood barred owl once again echoing in the night and the release of a new book by Tony Angell (The House of Owls), I couldn’t help thinking of not only how owls epitomize the blend or union of wisdom and compassion but also what that symbolism might mean for us in an everyday sense. The basic lesson for me is: we must listen more than we talk because listening is essential for acquiring wisdom and understanding as well as for developing compassion and kindness.
An owl listens to understand its environment. It listens so carefully and intensely that scientists have found that the neurons multiply in the auditory part of its brain; typical neurons in a human simply add. It takes the idea of ‘listening to learn’ to another level. Imagine being so focused on listening that you could pinpoint any change in your environment or in the people you are with at any given moment. It would truly be a heightened sense of awareness. The owl, in essence, improves its understanding and awareness by literally and figuratively multiplying its focus on listening. It synthesizes at least three different auditory signals at once. Although I love and support our use of the owl as a symbol of wisdom, I wish we would understand why our symbolism is correct: it is the owl’s listening ability that makes it wise.
Researchers have recently discovered another owl trait that makes them unique among birds: altruism. A study in the journal Animal Behaviour found that barn owls share food with their “smaller, hungrier siblings.” Although such generous behavior is considered rare in the aviary world, the existence of owl altruism weakens the Hobbesian argument that the animal instincts to be selfish, “nasty and brutish” are the foundation of human action. The way of the owl supports the Lockean notion that the basic instinct of humanity is founded on kindness, generosity and caring. While human social reality is a mixture of both Hobbesian and Lockean ideas, the way of the owl asks us to shift the balance of explanatory power regarding the basis of human action from Hobbes to Locke. From business to politics to sports, most of our culture promotes Hobbesian thinking over Lockean thought. If the Hobbesian argument is right, however, can the owl really be the only instinctually altruistic sentient being? Even Charles Darwin said no. Yes, the same Darwin who many still erroneously believe is synonymous with the phrase “survival of the fittest.”
In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin challenged what he wrote in On The Origin of Species. In the newer work he said “I perhaps attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest,” and “it hardly seems probable, that the number of men gifted with such virtues [as bravery and sympathy]…could be increased through natural selection, that is, by the survival of the fittest….for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.” Darwin’s use of the word “sympathy,” in the words of Paul Ekman, “today would be termed empathy, altruism, or compassion.” Darwin even called compassion “the almost ever-present instinct” when a fellow human being witnesses the suffering of another. The bumper sticker way of teaching and labeling Darwin’s ideas as exclusively focused on “survival of the fittest” is not only misleading, but it completely misses his idea that humanity’s success hinges on its compassion or sympathy.
Speaking of Darwin, did you ever wonder why we were born with two ears and one mouth? Just as the success of any owl is based upon the strength of its listening ability so is the success of any person. Are you ready to fly powered by listening and balanced on the wings of wisdom and compassion? Do you have the strength to follow the way of the owl?
BOOKS & ARTICLES:
Natalie Angier, “The Owl Comes Into Its Own,” The New York Times (February 25, 2013)
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed. (1874), esp. chapters 2, 4 and 5
Paul Ekman, “Darwin’s Compassionate View of Human Nature,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 303, no. 6 (10 February 2010): 557-558.
Paul Ekman, “Survival of the Kindest,” Mindful: Taking Time for What Matters
Kate Wong, “Owl Hearing Relies on Advanced Math,” Scientific American (April 13, 2001)
Julie Zickefoose, “Wise Guys,” a book review of Tony Angell’s The House of Owls in The Wall Street Journal (April 24, 2015)
Dr.Kukk with Scarlett Lewis, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy, Congresswoman Esty and others at the announcement of the Jesse Lewis Empowering Educators Act.
The following speech was given by me on April 13, 2015 at the announcement ceremony of Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) officially introducing a bill into the United States Senate called the Jesse Lewis Empowering Educators Act, which mandates social and emotional learning (SEL) in all schools throughout the country. Jesse was the 6 year-old boy who saved 9 of his fellow classmates during the Sandy Hook shooting; his inner strength was beyond his years in terms of social and emotional learning. Scarlett, his mom, asked me to speak at the announcement ceremony. I am one of the original members of the Jesse Lewis Choose Love Foundation’s Board of Directors, created a SEL curriculum called the Connected Five Cs™ and I am the founding Director of the Center for Compassion, Creativity & Innovation. I started working specifically with Scarlett on SEL issues soon after Jesse’s heroics and before there was a Jesse Lewis Choose Love Foundation. Scarlett and I vowed to each other that we wouldn’t stop our efforts until students have had SEL be a part of their education from pre-Kindergarten through college; in essence, it was our vow to Jesse. The announcement press conference for the Jesse Lewis Empowering Educators Act represents only one step but imagine if the Act is the start of all of us stepping in unison…our children and society would become as strong as Jesse’s inner strength during that fateful day.
Speech for The Jesse Lewis Empowering Educators Act
13 April 2015
What if there was an idea that produced, at a minimum, a $7–11 return on every $1 spent and had been scientifically proven to help raise academic scores, improve dropout and school suspension rates, reduce the incidences of school violence as well as strengthen community cohesion, would you support the idea? Senator Blumenthal’s bill is about turning such an idea into reality and we are asking for your support and help in turning his bill into law. The Jesse Lewis Empowering Educators Act is not only named in remembrance of a boy with amazing inner strength but it also seeks to promote an idea that will strengthen our entire country: it is called social and emotional learning, also known as SEL.
Senator Blumenthal’s bill directly addresses a fundamental problem in education that has gone unaddressed for decades: a child’s education and a child’s development are out of sync. The Jesse Lewis Empowering Educators Act synchronizes educating with learning. It’s about time. We know, based on scientifically peer-reviewed research (specifically in the field of neuroscience), that SEL is the foundation upon which many aspects of cognitive development rest.
There have been serious consequences of not synchronizing educating with learning and our children have been the ones to feel the effects. For example, according to Northwestern University, there has been a 66% increase in ADHD diagnoses since 2000. In addition, there has been a 21% increase in reported bullying since we began statistically tracking bullying via the National Center for Education Statistics (since 2003). From the pharmaceutical counters of ADHD diagnoses to the psychological sessions of the bullying epidemic, our children have borne the brunt of the misalignment between educating and learning. However, please do not think that the effects and consequences end with our children; we as members of society bear the costs of an education system without a consistent and strong SEL component. The costs come in the form of increased incarceration, substance abuse and hospitalization rates just to name a few.
Children who have experienced strong SEL programs in their education have increased emotional, intellectual and even physical resiliency compared to children who haven’t had such an experience. These are not spurious correlations; we know what happens in the brain in terms of the peptide hormones and neurotransmitters that are released when children are experiencing a healthy SEL environment and when they are not.
This bill seeks to build resiliency within children so that they not only become strong and stable individuals but contributing and compassionate members of our communities. Shouldn’t we all want that? I believe we do but if you read a 2014 study by Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, that is not what is happening. “Almost 80 percent of [middle and high school] students ranked [their own] achievement or happiness over caring for others.” The study goes on to state that “Any healthy civil society…depends on adults who are committed to their communities and who, at pivotal times, will put the common good before their own. We don’t seem to be preparing large numbers of youth to create this society.” The Jesse Lewis Empowering Educators Act is about preparing large numbers of youth for becoming—literally and figuratively—the pillars of our society.
The bill’s synchronization will help a new generation of Americans strengthen our country far into the future. Thank you Senator Blumenthal for this bill. Thank you Scarlett, Jesse’s Mom, for your unwavering devotion to improve education for all children. And thank you Jesse for inspiring all that is happening today.
Is compassion still necessary is akin to asking whether thinking is still necessary? While not everyone may practice thinking, thankfully most people believe it necessary. The same can be said of compassion. A world where most people are not compassionate would be a world without progress; for compassion is about holistically understanding the world around you so that you can find solutions to problems, thereby improving the quality of life. Compassion is necessary, especially if you want the world to progress. Even in a world full of compassion, it would still be necessary because compassion is like love; the more you use it, the more there is of it. In short, compassion will always be necessary just as thinking will be.
The host of Tipping Point Radio’s The Mastermind Show, Craig Meriwether, recently interviewed me for a specific program called “Is Compassion Still Necessary?” Craig and I discussed a wide range of issues as they relate to compassion such as politics, education, neuroscience, parenting, economics, religion and even video games. I hope that you’ll take a 45 minute ‘mindwalk’ about compassion with me and Craig: Click here to listen to the show.
If you are into any aspect of neuroscience or simply a zombie, this is one of the best weeks of the year: it’s Brain Awareness Week (March 16–22, 2015). Brain research, especially over the last decade, has provided unique and helpful insights into problems and questions in many areas and disciplines including computer science, economics, education, philosophy, politics, psychology and robotics. An area of neuroscience research with the potential to profoundly change the way we think and interact in society (from classrooms to living rooms to boardrooms) is the work being done in labs focused on understanding the difference between compassion and empathy. The compassion-empathy difference is more than semantic; the consequences are pragmatic. The distinction is real and so is its effect on society: knowing the difference can help individuals build resiliency and avoid burnout as well as turn “empathy gaps,” which have recently made headlines, into junctures for local community and national strength.
Compassion and empathy are not synonymous. Empathy is feeling the same emotion as someone else and compassion is feeling kindness towards another person. Where empathy is about stepping into the shoes of another to understand and share their feelings, compassion is about acquiring a 360 degrees understanding of the suffering or problem that a person is experiencing and taking action to resolve it. Compassion is a two-step process of understanding and acting but empathy is only one step and it is about emotionally absorbing the feelings of another.
Our brain knows the difference between compassion and empathy even if we aren’t aware of it. Tania Singer, director of neuroscience at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Lepzig, Germany has used MRI scanners to show that compassion and empathy “are two different phenomena associated with different brain activity patterns.” When we think compassionately we “light up” the same regions of the brain as love but empathetic thinking lights up regions associated with pain.
The neuroscience effect of having compassion at the forefront of our thinking is positive for each of us as individuals and for our communities. The effect, in very basic terms, is that when we think from a compassionate mindset, we release the peptide hormone oxytocin, which then activates the neurotransmitters of dopamine (brain reward) and serotonin (anxiety reduction) contributing to happiness and optimism—two characteristics that contribute to success.
Compassion’s strength as a power source for fostering communal as well as individual success is that it is not only derived from the same neural networks as love but it is centrally focused on the concern and care for others. When empathy is used as the source for helping another, the central motivation is to alleviate your own pain and stress. And that egocentric motivation is, I believe, one of the keys for understanding why burnout occurs much easier when we think empathetically. Emotionally absorbing another’s feelings, which empathy entails, is physically draining and can make you feel metaphorically stuck in quicksand. Compassion, on the other hand, keeps the emotional quicksand at a distance by using a more cognitive understanding of a person’s suffering when attempting to alleviate the pain: understanding without absorbing. We have confused compassion fatigue with empathy fatigue and that confusion has been reflected repeatedly in major media outlets over the last few months. If our society’s caregivers (i.e., nurses, paramedics, doctors, social workers, police and fire personnel, etc…) could learn how to harness the power of compassion, they would be helping themselves just as much as they are helping others. Their resiliency is an important source of our community strength.
Research has clearly shown that compassion can be taught and learned. Envision a world in which economics, education, medicine and even politics are infused with more compassion. Practicing compassion in politics would not only help Congress to act but act constructively. Imagine politicians who do more than say “I feel your pain” (empathy) but actually understand and do something about it (compassion): we would have more politicians who act with principles rather than for principal. Our modern political world could reflect the words of President Lincoln: “Republicans are for both the man and the dollar; but in case of conflict, the man before the dollar.”
Let’s fill in life’s empathy gaps with the compassion two-step. Let’s ride the neural networks of compassion to stronger and more resilient communities. While Dr. Singer and others are researching “whether it is possible to transform people’s empathetic reactions into compassionate action,” shouldn’t we just simply create waves of kindness that our neural networks naturally want to ride?
(NOTE: This piece is based on an entry I made last year on the difference between compassion and empathy with more emphasis on how neuroscience and social science interact in honor of Brain Awareness Week.)
BOOKS & ARTICLES:
Cognitive Neuroscience Society, “Feeling Others’ Pain: Transforming Empathy into Compassion,” (June 24, 2013).
Dacher Keltner, Jason Marsh and Jeremy Adam Smith (eds.), The Compassionate Instinct (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010).
Jason DeParle, “Our Kids, by Robert D. Putnam,” The New York Times ( March 4, 2015).
Nicholas Kristof, “Where’s the Empathy?” The New York Times (January 24, 2015).
Nicholas Kristof, “How do we Increase Empathy?” The New York Times (January 29, 2015).
Kai Kupferschmidt, “Concentrating on Kindness,” Science (September 19, 2013).
Helen Y. Weng, et. al., “Compassion Training Alters Altruism and Neural Responses to Suffering,” Association for Psychological Science (May 2013).
Paul Zak, The Moral Molecule: The Source of Love and Prosperity (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2012).
Teachers are the artists who help us paint who we are and the astronauts who help us explore the people we become. Teaching is a profession that explores and experiences, in the words of The Outer Limits intro, “the awe and mystery that reaches from the deepest inner-mind … to the outer limits.” Teachers mold our minds and help us reach for the stars. The best educators know that there is an art to teaching and science, especially neuroscience, is just beginning to help us understand how great teaching creates inspired learning.
My talk for the Jesse Lewis Choose Love Foundation’s 2014 workshop for teachers titled “The Science of Artful Teaching” explains how and why great teachers are both artists and astronauts. The talk, which is part of my Inspiring Teachers Talks (The IT Talks), weaves together research in neuroscience, education and even cosmology to show educators that what and how they teach literally and figuratively paints and sculpts their students’ brains and futures.
If you are willing to explore the cosmos, the brain and be “blinded by science” all in an effort to understand the power and influence of a teacher, then “The Science of Artful Teaching” is for you.
Here’s my talk.
Send this to friend